The Formation of Teams - Essay Example

Section 4 In this section, I will discuss the reflective lessons and ideas that I learnt in my membership of the group. As a matter of fact, I encountered so many new things that were in sync with the concept of teams as described in literature. The experiences we had provided important guidance and tools that are similar to the main lessons that we learnt about team work. Team Formation The team we worked in was made up of people very different backgrounds. We had different languages and different origins. We spoke English differently and we all did things so differently. More significantly, our origins exposed us to different legal and social structures that made the group inherently diverse. However, we were all united by one task: to complete the requirements of this module. Due to that that, we had to meet all the task objectives and work extremely hard to adjust and get things to run and attain the results we needed. Armstrong's view that teams are formed for the attainment of specific results (2011) was really applicable and significant here. We had a common goal of using the team as an end to meeting all course requirements. Due to this, the team was a convenient system for cooperation, problem solving, decision making, interpersonal relationships, diagnosis and debating (Armstrong, 2008). In relating our experience in the team and its distinctions from individuality and groups, I think that the team was a convenient platform for the attainment of the results that were specified in the course. In this context, the group involves all the students taking this Masters Degree program. We all have individual goals and are not united by specific goals. However, the formation of the team gave us a specific obligation and responsibilities on how to carry them out. This is what separated us from working as individuals who only study to pass individual assignments and also the wider group which was a loose connection of students. From my experiences with the team, I will define a team in my on words as a collection of people for the attainment of a specific end within a specified period of time. A team is more definite than a group. And the common objective and common goal, makes a team different from a group. And the synergistic results from the team makes it different from individual efforts. Team Dynamics Once the team was formed, we were just a group of individuals who sought to get things done and get out of this institution. However, the fact that we needed to work together meant that there were some important elements that needed to work together to attain the common goal. To this end, Tuckman's theory of team dynamics is the most significant theory that defines my experiences with the team. Forming When the team was formed, I was not very sure of what was going on. I felt it was just something I needed to do to get out of the program. I therefore joined sheepishly not sure of what was going to become of the whole team and all the works. Upon meeting the other team members, I only saw different people I had met in the course and did not really know them well. So I just joined the team without knowing what to expect. It is apparent that other members of the team were also in a similar predicament. I learn that formation of teams involves just an abstract collection of people. This means that they just come up without knowing what to expect or what to give to the group. However, the need to work together leads to creative and more dynamic ways of doing things and adjusting to meet group needs. Storming The first assignment we did was referred back for correction and the feedback indicated that our use of language was limited and our analysis lacked depth. Honestly speaking, our analysis of the case of the “Hole in the Wall” was not thorough enough. We just put something together during the first meeting because we had to. Most people kept to themselves and we were not even sure of what to expect from the supervisor. Ledlow defines storming as “the stage where members of the team feel they do not need to take anything that other members of the team do without speaking about it” (2009). This leads to a trend whereby members of the team assert themselves and make their thoughts and ideas know. And in most cases, it leads to conflict (Perry, 2009). On reflection, the comments on our presentation on “The Hole in the Wall” marked the turning point in our relationship as a team. Members of the team realised the need for important changes and actions that were meant to put the team in the right direction. So when we met to fix the issues raised by the supervisor, there were so many arguments and debates. People criticized those who played a leading role and others were upset at the quality of work we did. New ideas were brought to board and there was so much chaos in the team. Through the mess, different character traits were unleashed in the team. Belbin classified the essential team roles as follows: 1. Mental Roles: Plant, Monitor and Specialist. 2. Social Roles: Resource Investigator, Coordinator and Teamworker 3. Action Roles: Shaper, Implementer and Completer (Zamora, 2011) Belbin's view indicates that these different roles are necessary to make the group gel and enhance cooperation and proper results. In the period of our chaos in reaction to the feedback, one of the team members who was very quiet and considerate of everyone's views emerged as the coordinator. He calmed tempers and was ready to listen to everyone's points of view. He gradually emerged as the leader of the group and gained the trust of all members of the team. In my view, he became the coordinator, team worker and eventually, the monitor of the whole team. A second member who was always critical and never saw anything good with the team became the plant, resource investigator and the shaper. He always asked questions that threw the team back. He was not very popular. However, at the end of the process, we all appreciate his inputs in the team. We often connect him to Simon Cowell of American Idols fame. However, those criticisms got us going. Norming Things changed significantly on the second and third projects. On the third project on negotiation, we were more careful. We had a fair idea of how team members would react to certain circumstances and with the leader now accepted by all as the figurehead, we made adjustments for the chief-critic of the group and everyone prepared well for the requirements. I was very much unclear about negotiations and it was the first time I had encountered it. However, the query from the “Hole in the Wall” and the subsequent debates and arguments, I prepared well by reading ahead. On that particular episode, we all gave our best and we could tolerate each other's views. The team member who had now emerged as the unanimous leader complemented us and from that point, we realized the task ahead of us and decided to adjust and accept each other as we were. At the time it happened, we did not notice it. However, on hindsight, it is apparent that by the fourth product, we had adjusted to each other and were now ready to work for more superior results. Performing Tuckman explains this phase as the point where the outputs of the group are superior and at their highest levels (1965). At this point, we had developed strong communication systems and methods. We spend fewer times and our meetings were structured more clearly by the team leader. It was a straightforward set of meetings and communication had really improved. The significant pointer was that in the project on recruitment and selection, one would expect that our team, being a multinational one would have problems. This was logical because each of us were from countries where recruitment and selection was done differently. However, due to the fact that we had adjusted to each other and knew how to communicate, the leader of the group managed to organise us easily. Each member was free to come up with questions and we always shared what we had and what we thought and reconciled it with the dominant UK system that was the focus of the course. Through this, we could identify commonalities and avoid long debates. After Performing Most writers indicate that after forming, storming, norming and performing, there is a period of dorming. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) identified that there is a period of adjourning where the group becomes so dormant and less effective that they begin to adjourn everything. Others blame teams that last long for being stereotype by presenting the concept of groupthink (Janis, 1971). In my experience, with this team, I think that those situations like adjourning, dorming and groupthink are common with permanent teams like those that last for very long periods of time. In the case of this team, I noticed that we performed well and our performance continued to improve. In one of the last things we did, we had to do a video presentation but we delayed because we did not prepare well for it. This means that although we were performing, there were many performance related things that we should have gotten right. This would have consolidated our partnership and if it continued for a much longer time, then adjourning, dorming and groupthink would have set in. Also, I think that without the appropriate roles being present in a group, performing would always be a problem. And in order to prevent these post-team issues from coming up, a team would have to inject new ideas and if possible, introduce new members who would do things differently. Conclusion The department came up with this exercise to help us to learn more about teamwork. And from this exercise, I learn that team work is vital if there is the need to attain results which requires the separation of individuals from the wider group to form a distinct team to meet these ends. Teams are the best way of getting sections of the wider group to do serious work in order to attain results. The formation of teams is abstract in nature. When the team is formed, there is the need for the members to work together to attain the results at hand. This inevitably leads to the storming phase which is the phase members of the team adjust to attain results. In the team project, we had members from diverse backgrounds and we were united by the need to fulfil a primary course requirement of working as a team to attain specified ends. Through the storming process, we created a leadership and communication system that enabled the team to build the rightful framework for work. This enabled us to attain optimal results and perform well to achieve good results and understand each other. Our team was one that lasted for a relatively short period of time. Due to this, we did not experience long-term team building problems like dorming, adjourning and group think which is common in more permanent groups. References Armstrong, M. (2008) Strategic Human Resource Management: A Guide to Action London: Kogan Page. Armstrong, M. (2011) How to Manage People London: Kogan Page. Janis, I. L. (1971). "Groupthink". Psychology Today 5 (6): 43–46, 74–76. Ledlow, G. (2009) Leadership for Health Professionals New York: Jones and Bartlett Publishing. Perry, J. (2009) Human Resource Management London; SAGE Publications. Tuckman, B. (1965) Developmental Sequence in Small Groups Bethseda, MD: Naval Medical Research Institute Tuckman, B and Jensen, M. A. C. (1977) “Stages of Small Groups Development Revisited” Group and Organisational Studies 2 (1) Zamora, R. C. (2010) Complexity: A Model of Collaboration and Complexity for Management London: Lulu Read More